4 ms·

> AI is perfectly suited to fixing this problem. I recently spent several hours rewriting a somewhat important article. I did not add or subtract information fr

> AI is perfectly suited to fixing this problem. I recently spent several hours rewriting a somewhat important article. I did not add or subtract information from the article, I simply made it clearer and more concise. I'm confused by this. Is this written by an AI? > Repetition and redundancy, ambiguity, illogical ordering of content, rambling sentences, opaque grammar. This pile of words is missing a verb. "You" (whoever that is, human or not) edited a single article, and that experience convinced you that "AI is perfectly suited to fixing this problem"? Ironically, the lack of evidence to support such a strong assertion is one of the key problems with AI writing in general. The idea that you could edit an article extensively without adding or subtracting information is facile. I would love to see this edit.

ragazzina 9mo ago
> This pile of words is missing a verb. And yet is completely understandable.
- oasisbob 9mo ago
  And also entirely ironic. > Repetition and redundancy, ambiguity, illogical ordering of content, rambling sentences, opaque grammar. Repetition AND redundancy? Illogical ordering in an unordered list of things. Rambling (could be more items or less). What's the grammar of a sentence like this? Diagramming it would be a challenge. I'd call that opaque.
bluebarbet 9mo ago
Hard to explain the hostility here. I simply outlined my opinion ("take") and backed it up with reasons. I have been a Wikipedia editor for well over 20 years. That should not be relevant to my argument.
- oasisbob 9mo ago
  Why shouldn't it be relevant? The example you put forth supporting your claim that AI is perfect for Wikipedia editing is that you (ambiguously) edited an article, perhaps using AI. The post also reads like it was partially written with AI. I'm sorry you see my response as hostile, but I hope you can see how this example isn't accomplishing your intended rhetorical goals.
  - bluebarbet 9mo ago
    It shouldn't be relevant because it's an argument from authority, and one that I can't even prove. Meanwhile, my actual argument (which, like my Wikipedia contributions, involved no help from AI) was reasoned. The real issue is that you (alone in this thread, I might add) are not taking my argument at face value. Indeed you seem to be accusing me of dishonesty. I must admit that I've never understood this kind of cynicism. I personally find it very easy to assume good faith on the part of others (which, incidentally, is a community rule here.). Anyway, that's all I have to say.
    - oasisbob 9mo ago
      I'm not accusing you of dishonesty, I just don't understand the evidence you're putting forward to support your claim. Have you, as an experienced Wikipedia editor ever used AI to revise articles? What was your experience? Telling a story about editing an article once and thinking that AI could do it isn't as compelling. Establishing ethos isn't the same thing as an appeal to authority.

ragazzina 9mo ago

> This pile of words is missing a verb. And yet is completely understandable.

oasisbob 9mo ago
And also entirely ironic. > Repetition and redundancy, ambiguity, illogical ordering of content, rambling sentences, opaque grammar. Repetition AND redundancy? Illogical ordering in an unordered list of things. Rambling (could be more items or less). What's the grammar of a sentence like this? Diagramming it would be a challenge. I'd call that opaque.

bluebarbet 9mo ago

Hard to explain the hostility here. I simply outlined my opinion ("take") and backed it up with reasons. I have been a Wikipedia editor for well over 20 years. That should not be relevant to my argument.

oasisbob 9mo ago
Why shouldn't it be relevant? The example you put forth supporting your claim that AI is perfect for Wikipedia editing is that you (ambiguously) edited an article, perhaps using AI. The post also reads like it was partially written with AI. I'm sorry you see my response as hostile, but I hope you can see how this example isn't accomplishing your intended rhetorical goals.
- bluebarbet 9mo ago
  It shouldn't be relevant because it's an argument from authority, and one that I can't even prove. Meanwhile, my actual argument (which, like my Wikipedia contributions, involved no help from AI) was reasoned. The real issue is that you (alone in this thread, I might add) are not taking my argument at face value. Indeed you seem to be accusing me of dishonesty. I must admit that I've never understood this kind of cynicism. I personally find it very easy to assume good faith on the part of others (which, incidentally, is a community rule here.). Anyway, that's all I have to say.
  - oasisbob 9mo ago
    I'm not accusing you of dishonesty, I just don't understand the evidence you're putting forward to support your claim. Have you, as an experienced Wikipedia editor ever used AI to revise articles? What was your experience? Telling a story about editing an article once and thinking that AI could do it isn't as compelling. Establishing ethos isn't the same thing as an appeal to authority.